Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Lancet ; 397(10282): 1326-1327, 2021 Apr 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575495
2.
Cell Reports Medicine ; : 100486, 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1569129

ABSTRACT

The urgent need for, but limited availability of, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines worldwide has led to widespread consideration of dose sparing strategies. Here, we evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses following BNT162b2 vaccination in 150 previously SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from a population-based cohort. One week after first vaccine dose, spike protein antibody levels are 27-fold higher and neutralizing antibody titers 12-fold higher, exceeding titers of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naive controls, with minimal additional boosting after the second dose. Neutralizing antibody titers against four variants of concern increase after vaccination, however overall neutralization breadth does not improve. Pre-vaccination neutralizing antibody titers and time since infection have the largest positive effect on titers following vaccination. COVID-19 severity and the presence of comorbidities have no discernible impact on vaccine response. In conclusion, a single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine up to 15 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection offers higher neutralizing antibody titers than two vaccine doses in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals.

3.
Elife ; 102021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1529013

ABSTRACT

Current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are losing efficacy against emerging variants and may not protect against future novel coronavirus outbreaks, emphasizing the need for more broadly protective vaccines. To inform the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine, we investigated the presence and specificity of cross-reactive antibodies against the spike (S) proteins of human coronaviruses (hCoV) after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. We found an 11- to 123-fold increase in antibodies binding to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV as well as a 2- to 4-fold difference in antibodies binding to seasonal hCoVs in COVID-19 convalescent sera compared to pre-pandemic healthy donors, with the S2 subdomain of the S protein being the main target for cross-reactivity. In addition, we detected cross-reactive antibodies to all hCoV S proteins after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in macaques and humans, with higher responses for hCoV more closely related to SARS-CoV-2. These findings support the feasibility of and provide guidance for development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine.

4.
Eur Geriatr Med ; 2021 Nov 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525644

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To assess whether one swab can be used to perform both the antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 detection during an outbreak in the nursing home (NH) setting. METHODS: The single-swab method (SSM), where the Ag-RDT is performed with the transport medium used for RT-PCR, was evaluated in three Dutch NHs and compared to the laboratory setting. We collected Ag-RDT and RT-PCR results, NH resident characteristics and symptomatology. In addition, two focus groups were held with the involved care professionals to gain insight into the feasibility of the SMM in the NH setting. RESULTS: In the NH setting, the SSM had a sensitivity of 51% and a specificity of 89% compared to RT-PCR. These were lower than in the laboratory setting (69% and 100% respectively). Yet, when stratified for cycle threshold values, the sensitivity became comparable between the settings. Symptoms occurred more frequent in the Ag-RDT+ group than Ag-RDT- group. Resident characteristics did not differ between these groups. Based on the focus groups, the SSM was feasible to perform if certain requirements, such as availability of staff, equipment and proper training, were met. However, the rapid availability of the test results were perceived as a dilemma. CONCLUSION: The advantages and disadvantages need to be considered before implementation of the SSM can be recommended in the NH setting. For the vulnerable NH residents, it is important to find the right balance between effective testing policy and the burden this imposes.

5.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1690-1702, 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525402

ABSTRACT

Importance: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. Interventions: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , ABO Blood-Group System , Adult , Aged , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Failure , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
6.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 137, 2021 09 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440955

ABSTRACT

We describe the lessons learned during a SARS-CoV-2 variant-of-concern Alpha outbreak investigation at a normal care unit in a university hospital in Amsterdam in December 2020. The outbreak consisted of nine nurses and two roomed-in patient family members. (attack rate 18%). One nurse tested positive with a phylogenetically distinct variant, after a documented infection 83 days prior. Three key points were taken from this investigation. First, it was controlled by adherence to existing guidelines, despite increased transmissibility of the variant. Second, viral sequencing can inform transmission cluster inference, but the epidemiological context is essential to draw appropriate conclusions. Third, reinfections with Alpha variants can occur rapidly after primary infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Reinfection/virology , COVID-19/virology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/virology , Disease Outbreaks , Guideline Adherence , Humans , Infection Control , Inpatients , Netherlands , Nurses , Phylogeny , Reinfection/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Sep 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1393222

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few robust longitudinal data on long-term COVID-19 symptoms are available. We evaluated symptom onset, severity and recovery across the full spectrum of disease severity, up to one year after illness onset. METHODS: The RECoVERED Study is a prospective cohort study based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Participants aged≥18 years were enrolled following SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis via the local Public Health Service and from hospitals. Standardised symptom questionnaires were completed at enrolment, one week and month later, and monthly thereafter. Clinical severity was defined according to WHO criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare time from illness onset to symptom recovery, by clinical severity. We examined determinants of time to recovery using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Between 11 May 2020 and 1 May 2021, 342 COVID-19 patients (192[56%] male) were enrolled, of whom 99/342(29%) had mild, 145/342(42%) moderate, 56/342(16%) severe and 42/342(12%) critical disease. The proportion of participants who reported at least one persistent symptom at 12 weeks after illness onset was greater in those with severe/critical disease (86.7%[95%CI=76.5-92.7%]) compared to those with mild or moderate disease (30.7%[95%CI=21.1-40.9%] and 63.8%[95%CI=54.8-71.5%]). At twelve months after illness onset, two-fifths of participants (40.7%[95%CI=34.2-47.1]) continued to report ≥1 symptom. Recovery was slower in female compared to male participants (aHR 0.65[95%CI=0.47-0.92]) and those with a BMI≥30kg/m 2 compared to BMI<25kg/m 2 (HR 0.62[95%CI=0.39-0.97]). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 symptoms persisted for one year after illness onset, even in some individuals with mild disease. Female sex and obesity were the most important determinants of speed of recovery from symptoms.

9.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(7): e2118554, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1328587

ABSTRACT

Importance: It is unclear when, where, and by whom health care workers (HCWs) working in hospitals are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine how often and in what manner nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs in HCW groups with varying exposure to patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 4 weekly measurements of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and collection of questionnaires from March 23 to June 25, 2020, combined with phylogenetic and epidemiologic transmission analyses at 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands. Included individuals were HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and HCWs not working in patient care. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020. Exposures: Varying work-related exposure to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The cumulative incidence of and time to SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in blood samples, were measured. Results: Among 801 HCWs, there were 439 HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, 164 HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and 198 HCWs not working in patient care. There were 580 (72.4%) women, and the median (interquartile range) age was 36 (29-50) years. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was increased among HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19 (54 HCWs [13.2%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.4%]) compared with HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19 (11 HCWs [6.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%-10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.17-4.30) and HCWs not working in patient care (7 HCWs [3.6%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.1%]; HR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.79-8.62). Among HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence was increased among HCWs working on COVID-19 wards (32 of 134 HCWs [25.7%; 95% CI, 17.6%-33.1%]) compared with HCWs working on intensive care units (13 of 186 HCWs [7.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-10.7%]; HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.91-6.94), and HCWs working in emergency departments (7 of 102 HCWs [8.0%; 95% CI, 2.5%-13.1%]; HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.52-7.14). Epidemiologic data combined with phylogenetic analyses on COVID-19 wards identified 3 potential HCW-to-HCW transmission clusters. No patient-to-HCW transmission clusters could be identified in transmission analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that HCWs working on COVID-19 wards were at increased risk for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection with an important role for HCW-to-HCW transmission. These findings suggest that infection among HCWs deserves more consideration in infection prevention practice.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/genetics , Personnel, Hospital , Phylogeny , Population Surveillance , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged
10.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Sustainability ; 13(8):4198, 2021.
Article in English | MDPI | ID: covidwho-1178418

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted people’s lives worldwide, with negative consequences for mental health and well-being. Antecedents of mental health and well-being in times of COVID-19 have been underresearched, especially among minority groups. Therefore, an online survey was conducted investigating the personal and societal antecedents of mental well-being among Chinese immigrants in the Netherlands (N = 268). Constructs included perceived decrease of mental well-being and attitude toward the Netherlands as dependent variables and a range of potential antecedents as independent variables. Results show that participants judged the Chinese COVID-19 situation significantly more positively than the Dutch situation. Five antecedents of decreased mental well-being were found: financial concerns, social isolation, feelings of lost time, experienced racism, and distrust of Dutch COVID-19 information and figures. The antecedents of participants’ attitude toward the Netherlands were largely different: missing China, perceived difficulty of traveling to China, distrust of Dutch government measures, trust in Chinese government measures, and distrust of Dutch COVID-19 information and figures. Fear of the virus itself did not significantly affect either of the dependent variables. The results call for a broad perspective on fac-tors associated with mental well-being and for special attention for minority groups in the societal dynamics.

12.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 17(7): 879-891, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-679536

ABSTRACT

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).


Subject(s)
Community-Acquired Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Influenza, Human/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia/therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Pandemics , Point-of-Care Systems , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Lancet Microbe ; 1(7): e290-e299, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1087376

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) targets multiple organs and causes severe coagulopathy. Histopathological organ changes might not only be attributable to a direct virus-induced effect, but also the immune response. The aims of this study were to assess the duration of viral presence, identify the extent of inflammatory response, and investigate the underlying cause of coagulopathy. Methods: This prospective autopsy cohort study was done at Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC), the Netherlands. With informed consent from relatives, full body autopsy was done on 21 patients with COVID-19 for whom autopsy was requested between March 9 and May 18, 2020. In addition to histopathological evaluation of organ damage, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and the composition of the immune infiltrate and thrombi were assessed, and all were linked to disease course. Findings: Our cohort (n=21) included 16 (76%) men, and median age was 68 years (range 41-78). Median disease course (time from onset of symptoms to death) was 22 days (range 5-44 days). In 11 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 tropism, SARS-CoV-2 infected cells were present in multiple organs, most abundantly in the lungs, but presence in the lungs became sporadic with increased disease course. Other SARS-CoV-2-positive organs included the upper respiratory tract, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract. In histological analyses of organs (sampled from nine to 21 patients per organ), an extensive inflammatory response was present in the lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, and brain. In the brain, extensive inflammation was seen in the olfactory bulbs and medulla oblongata. Thrombi and neutrophilic plugs were present in the lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, spleen, and brain and were most frequently observed late in the disease course (15 patients with thrombi, median disease course 22 days [5-44]; ten patients with neutrophilic plugs, 21 days [5-44]). Neutrophilic plugs were observed in two forms: solely composed of neutrophils with neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), or as aggregates of NETs and platelets.. Interpretation: In patients with lethal COVID-19, an extensive systemic inflammatory response was present, with a continued presence of neutrophils and NETs. However, SARS-CoV-2-infected cells were only sporadically present at late stages of COVID-19. This suggests a maladaptive immune response and substantiates the evidence for immunomodulation as a target in the treatment of severe COVID-19. Funding: Amsterdam UMC Corona Research Fund.

14.
Ann Surg ; 272(6): 919-924, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1029777

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , Emergency Treatment , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Preoperative Care/methods , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Thorax/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Retrospective Studies
15.
J Clin Med ; 9(5)2020 May 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-854149

ABSTRACT

When preparing for the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the coronavirus infection disease (COVID-19) questions arose regarding various aspects concerning the anaesthetist. When reviewing the literature it became obvious that keeping up-to-date with all relevant publications is almost impossible. We searched for and summarised clinically relevant topics that could help making clinical decisions. This is a subjective analysis of literature concerning specific topics raised in our daily practice (e.g., clinical features of COVID-19 patients; ventilation of the critically ill COVID-19 patient; diagnostic of infection with SARS-CoV-2; stability of the virus; Covid-19 in specific patient populations, e.g., paediatrics, immunosuppressed patients, patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, kidney or liver disease; co-medication with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); antiviral treatment) and we believe that these answers help colleagues in clinical decision-making. With ongoing treatment of severely ill COVID-19 patients other questions will come up. While respective guidelines on these topics will serve clinicians in clinical practice, regularly updating all guidelines concerning COVID-19 will be a necessary, although challenging task in the upcoming weeks and months. All recommendations during the current extremely rapid development of knowledge must be evaluated on a daily basis, as suggestions made today may be out-dated with the new evidence available tomorrow.

16.
JAMA ; 324(13): 1317-1329, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-739603

ABSTRACT

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydrocortisone/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Humans , Hydrocortisone/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/drug therapy , Shock/etiology , Treatment Outcome
17.
J Clin Med ; 9(8)2020 Aug 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-711366

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic poses great challenges for healthcare workers around the world, including perioperative specialists. Previously, we provided a first overview of available literature on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, relevant for anaesthetists and intensivists. In the current review, we provide an update of this topic, after a literature search current through May 2020. We discuss the evidence on perioperative risk for COVID-19 patients presenting for surgery, the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the operating room, and the current literature on laboratory diagnostics. Furthermore, cardiovascular and nervous system involvement in COVID-19 are discussed, as well as considerations in diabetic patients. Lastly, the latest evidence on pharmacological treatment is summarised.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...